I haven't updated in a while because I've been swamped in school. My bad.

Anyway, I have this boyfriend and something just isn't quite right. I'm not looking for everything to be perfect, but something is massively wrong between us and I think I may have put my finger on what it is. My question now is whether or not I can deal with the problem. It's neither my fault nor his, but in the same fashion neither of us can fix it.

Anyway, I don't really like to toot mmy own horn so I've never really mentioned this on here, but I have an IQ of about 137. I'm roughly 3-7 points away from the genius bracket. I know that most people view high IQ scores as simply a good thing, but I find that in relationships it's sort of a challenge. I'm moody, complicated, and display many of the symptoms of ADD. I also have to be under an amazing amount of stress in my academic pursuits before I'm satisfied by them. If I do anything even remotely considered 'average' then I get bored very quickly.

Anyway, the average person has an IQ of about 100. So I'm 37 points higher than average. If you consider the same relationship between a person of average intelligence with someone who has an IQ that is 37 points below average, then it's far easier to see why I have trouble with 'average' people. When I talk to a person who is of average intelligence, it's the same as an average person talking to someone with an IQ of 63 (mild mental retardation).

The problem comes in the fact that (supposedly) only about 2% of the population is as smart as I am. Perhaps 'smart' isn't the best way to describe a high IQ. The IQ score really only measures your academic performance. Perhaps it should be said more accurately that only about 2% of the population processes information as fast as I do and in the same way.

As well as having an IQ far above average, I also am very introverted. I have the stereotypical 'nerd' personality going on. I live right above a night club and I spend my Friday and Saturday nights observing the world from my ivory tower (I live on an upper floor of an ivory colored apartment builing, lol) and usually reading.

The problem I think I may be having with my boyfriend, as much as it pains me to say this, is that I think he's average. I can't talk about anything scholarly with him. He's stubborn and very close minded. I constantly try to explain to him that I seem odd to him because of the way my personality is (my perceived ADD, my dyslexia, my awkward social patterns, etc), but he rejects every little seed of knowledge that I try to plant in him. It's so odd. I have never seen someone so completely reject information like he does. It's as if he doesn't want to know anything or he doesn't want to learn anything. He actively rejects it.

In the same way that I have problems with him and the way he is, he seems to have some problems with me as well. I may be very intelligent but I lack common sense for the most part. When it comes to something simple like making a salad for example, when someone asks me to do it I'll just stand there and stare at it for a while and then as "how?" because in my mind I think of all the possible ways to make the salad. I don't just assume the right way like he does. In his eyes it makes me seems a little stupid I think (come on, he thinks I don't know how to mix vegetables in a bowl!).

Anyway, we're just two very different people as far as our personalities go. We get along decently except for when I try to explain a fact to him or something about how the world works. Basically, I really love him and how he treats me but we couldn't be more opposite intellectually. I have an IQ of  137, scored high enough on my SATs to get into Harvard, and hide in my apartment learning constantly. He doesn't care about any type of knowledge if it won't specifically aid him in living his life, he's the life of the party, and I'm adequately certain he's never read a whole book in his life.

Can this work at all? Am I expecting too much from him? I don't want to just leave him for someone who is more on my theoretical 'level'. I love him the way he is, but he just doesn't understand me at all and I'm starting to think that he may lack the capacity to.

I feel like I already know the answer to this question but I want someone to disagree with me because I love him and I want it to work.

This is to the woman who stopped me in the street last week because my daughter was dressed "inappropriately to go in public". Yes, apparently a 3 year old can be dressed inappropriately now.

I'm sorry that you mean middle aged women who decided not to start using your womb until you were 34 seem to think that you have some right to criticize my daughter because I happen to be 20 years younger than you at the moment (40 vs. 19). Well, I would like to kindly tell you all to blow it out your fucking asses.

I let my daughter parade around the street in whatever the hell she wants. She's 3 years old. She doesn't own any inappropriate clothing. I would know, because I buy all of her clothes, wash them, and put them in her closet for her to choose from.

So, when you crusty old bitches see my daughter walking down the street in a dress with jeans on underneath it, you can just shut the fuck up. Excuse me for not stifling my daughter's sense of creativity in her clothing, but really it's none of your mother fucking business.

I'm not so much of a dictator bitch mother that I have to control every single thing that my child does. You see, my daughter is smart enough and creative enough to pick out her own damn clothes. She can put them on by herself, and even looks out the window first to see if it's rainy or sunny, then dresses for the weather.

I encourage her to try her best and to do things on her own. That's what smart independent children do, but you wouldn't know that because your snot dribbling brats couldn't even put their own shirts on without your help (and they looked to be several years older than my daughter). I'm not trying to teach my daughter that it's "wrong" or "not done correctly" when her clothes don't look at all like what all the other kids are wearing. My daughter likes the dress, she likes the pants, she likes the bright green hairband, and the fake pearl necklace with the Disney Princess charm on it. When she wants to wear them all together to walk to the grocery store, I let her. She's expressing her affinity for those particular items and I'm not going to stifle her.

I won't accept criticism for encouraging my daughter to be an individual and not conforming her to the same cookie cutter "ideal" that you hold your children to. I don't find that ideal very attractive. I like my daughter in her striped dresses (reminiscent of the Whos from Dr. Seuss books) far more than I'd like her in a pair of blue jeans and a Seahawks shirt (because apparently "good" children can only wear jeans and T-shirts). I like her unbrushed curly hair (which, by the way, any idiot knows that you DON'T brush extremely curly hair once it dries because it becomes a giant puff ball. Given that she got her hair from ME, not you, I know what to do with it more than you do), her quarter machine wash-off tattoos, and her tiny purse that she likes to carry around with a tiny pad of paper and a bunch of crayons (See? My kid is better than yours, even if her clothes don't match she still comes prepared).

So next time you fugly whores want to criticize someone for how their dressed, why don't you pick on me? I know it's just so much easier for you bitches to criticize the 3 year old who can't defend her sense of style than her mother who will promptly tell you to go fuck yourselves with your Coach purses you love so much, but next time I highly consider you rethink picking on my daughter. She's 37 years younger than you and already more of a free-thinker than you ever could be.

Basically, I want you all to know this: You're not a better mother than I am. Your kid is not better than mine. My kid is smarter and more creative than yours are. Your kids will grow up and just be more faces in the crowd, while mine will shine like a fucking star.

Okay, so for those who don't know me very well (which is most, if not all of you) it will probably be news to you that I read a lot of science fiction. Perhaps it's not shocking news, but I don't think I've ever mentioned this before. One of my favorite authors is Larry Niven. I am a devout Nivenite and have read almost all his books (which are quite numerous). He's not everyone's cup of tea, but I like a little imagination in my books. The best thing about his books is that some (possibly a lot) of them include things that really could happen at some point. One of the books I just read a couple weeks ago included one of those things, and it was actually rather chilling.

The setting of this book is a few decades later than now. I think it was around 2050 but I don't recall exactly. The world is run by major corporations and the citizens of the world now pledge allegiance to various mega-companies instead of their traditional national ties (save for a few stragglers who are resisting the change). With out the various nations, who is in power? A group of people referred to as "the council" emerges. They're the heads of those major companies. Most of them are very old, kept alive just with extreme medical assistance, and they are completely detached from society. As a matter of fact, no one even sees these real figures or really even knows who they are. Some people are known to be members of that "council" but many of the members aren't even known to the rest of the world.

Technology can be a scary thing, and that's the main thing you'll be left with from reading this book. It will make you second guess your web cam, online banking, self-timing anything, and pretty much anything else that's technology related. The biggest fear that we should have from technology, though, is the opportunity it gives to completely bamboozle the entire world.

I'm sure we've all thought about it. Is what we see in the news really what's going on? Is what we hear about our medications and medical procedures really accurate? Could we just be pawns in a world wide game of chess?

Okay, maybe I'm the only one that's thought that last part, but I'm sure the growing technology available to us has caused someone besides me to stop and question what we're told. Anyway, I digress.

As you can imagine, in 40 years once we have finally succeeded in getting better medical care to the third world and providing food for everyone on the planet, what do you think will happen to birthrates? Studies and statistics have shown that women with the lowest education level have the highest number of children. This isn't going to change just by providing medical care and nutrition, so the high birthrate of the less educated/poor will continue.

In the story, the poor and uneducated are grossly out numbering the more intelligent and educated after a few more decades of the birthrate differences. The world is over crowded now that nutrition can be provided and medical care prevents most babies from dying. Basically, the world is being over populated and turn into a giant ghetto, and someone comes up with a skeezy plan to fix it.

Vaccines are commonly given to children to prevent diseases. Wouldn't it be nice, though, if someone could find a way to not have to stab the kids with needles to give them shots? Well, someone thought of that in this story. Vaccines were given to mothers that could pass through the placenta to the child. So, the child was born inocculated.

The vaccines that were given to the mothers, unfortunately, had something else slipped in them by the rich figureheads of the companies that ruled the world. They also added something to the vaccine that prevented any female children born to the mother who got the vaccine shot from becoming fertile.

The vaccines were only given to women in the third world contries and poor areas where diseases still run rampant. So in essence, the rulers of the world sterilized much of the worlds population that was out breeding the educated, filling the world with more mouths depending on international aid, and crowding the world with squalor and ignorance. Low and behold, 14 to 16 years after the shots began being given to the mothers, many cases of infertility in young wives were noticed. The number grew and grew, until it was confirmed by the world that someone had sterilized their daughters.

Now, I highly doubt that would actually happen (at least not soon), but it is a noted fact that the uneducated outbreed the educated. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, because I think the birthrate for women with college degrees is like 1.6 or something. It takes 2 people to make a baby. When they die, if they followed the birthrate, they'd only leave 1.6 people behind (if that was possible). So the population would be shrinking if that happened.

Currently though, it's only the population of those with college degrees that seems to be shrinking according to the numbers. A portion of them could be replaced by those who come from a non-educated family but still continue their education, but I can't seem to find a statistic for that.

Currently it's estimated that by 2050 (the date I think the book was set in) the global population will be over 9 billion. Currently it's not even 7 billion and already becoming over populated. It doesn't really matter who is breeding to much and/or where, the real problem is that in just a few generations the world is going to be over populated. There won't be enough resources to support the population, there will be massive amounts of pullution, and starvation or disease will probably end up taking out a large number quickly and violently.

We've found ways to get around all the sad facts of life. Babies don't die often anymore, people are living longer and longer, those who are infertile can get fertility treatments and have kids anyway, diseases are avoided, and it's going to do nothing but cause our population to grow to the point that the planet can't support us.

We are the top of the food chain. What we've done here is take away all of our natural down falls. We have absolutely none now, basically. There's nothing to keep our population from exploding. This can be seen all the time in nature. If you remove a predator, then whatever they eat is going to have a population boom and whatever that species eats will be completely depleated. It's destroyed eco systems in places. I'm guessing this also works on a global scale with those at the very top of the chain (us).

I'm thinking that because college degrees (and most likely careers) are what prevents the upper classes from having many children, perhaps the developed world should be making a far greater effort to educate everyone. Realistically speaking, if no one does anything the world's population will be double what it is now within 100 years.

What  do you think should be done? Have you ever considered global over-population before?

**I would like to note that I completely do not support the sterilization of the third world countries. That's completely fucked up and was just an example from the book I was reading (Saturn's Race by Larry Niven if you'd like to check it out). I'm far more supportive of education and encouraging birthcontrol.